"Filial correction"

[Ghosty1981]

Perhaps he’s kicking around, but I’m in Seattle and not Oakland. I only know the local Brothers, and even then I’m not familiar with most of them that are around now as our primary parish is the local Melkite mission.

I was most active there many years ago when Fr. Bernard Blankenhorn was based there, before he was called away to the Angelicum. He gave the greatest free classes on Thomistic theology.

 

[BlackFriar]

you are contrasting the only means given by the Church to Receive Communion (abstain from sexual relations) with a situation that is beyond control for reasons you’ve already offered as “criteria”.

Maybe its late at night but I don’t really understand your point.
Anyways, “abstaining” is not the full story for access is it?
It is the “intent to abstain” and access to Confession when one fails that allows private Communion.
In Catholic Moral Theology this intent may even be practically impossible to effect.

Which is why gluttons, wine-bibbers, prostitutes and tax collectors may well enter the Kingdom before us.
Possibly some “adulterers” too then.

The “other spouse” for those living in an adulterous relationship may have abandoned them, so reconciliation in that regard is out of their control.

Again, not quite sure what you are getting at here.
Might be good to scare quote each sentence you are commenting on.

But sexual intercourse is the act of conjugal love that belongs only to a valid husband and wife. So it is the minimum requirement to be honored so that reception of Communion is possible.

The linkage between these two sentences is what we are trying to establish.
To simply assert it as a given seems circular and takes discussion nowhere.
The assertion doesn’t seem to hold if abstainers can access Confession if they regularly fail every fortnight and still receive. Which JPII allowed.

Therefore if we are to be consistent we must either stay with your theology and reverse JPII on this…or go all the way to FI.

I am starting to believe JPII’s exception is fundamentally inconsistent and a “rest point” rather than a destination.

 

[Rau]

Fr. Basil Cole, O.P., is Ordinary Professor of Moral, Spiritual and Dogmatic Theology at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C.

Summary of the Dubia by Cole

 

[_Abyssinia]

Bishop Gracida and Fr Andrew Pinsent: Why we signed the filial correction

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...-pinsent-why-we-signed-the-filial-correction/

 

[Vadne]

Father Pinsent in particular offers quite wise words:

Fr Andrew Pinsent

I signed the filial correction not due to a lack of filial respect for the Holy Father, but because of the gravity of the situation.

The correction is a next step, consistent with the teaching of Jesus Christ (Matt 18:15-17) and St Paul confronting St Peter (Gal 2:11), that follows a series of unanswered petitions since 2015. These have included one with nearly 800,000 signatures from 178 countries and including 202 prelates prior to the ludicrously manipulated family synod; the appeal of the 45 scholars and clergy to the College of Cardinals to repudiate possible heretical readings of Amoris Laetitia; the dubia of the four cardinals, whom the Pope did not even have the courtesy to meet; and the statement of the confraternities representing thousands of priests worldwide.

As Prof Josef Seifert warned recently, before being sacked for making this warning, we are facing the risk of the total destruction of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. I would add that the contradictions now being introduced deny reason itself and are catastrophic for the Church’s mission of offering salvation to souls. Since I have given my own life to the priesthood exclusively for the salvation of souls, I had to add my name to the correction.

Fr Pinsent is Research Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University

 

[Pug]

Sometimes I feel that same frustration about the lack of attention to the centurions words.

In case not clear in my previous post, I was thinking of usage like CCC 1837:

To prepare for worthy reception of this sacrament, the faithful should observe the fast required in their Church. Bodily demeanor (gestures, clothing) ought to convey the respect, solemnity, and joy of this moment when Christ becomes our guest.

 

[Pug]

I gave the link to the commentary on amazon in previous post, just more concisely. It is the only commentary I have access to, and I agree that is a limitation. But I have no seminary library. I’m just an average parishioner type person.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Commenta...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0809140667

I am fully aware that a language change between codes can indeed mean something, but the commentary is far more likely to be right than me and the small knowledge I have.

Feel free to post a paragraph or two from your commentary.

 

[rcwitness]

Sorry if I didn’t express somethings clearly. My bad. And yes, I’m trying to learn the new format better.

I’m curious now, if you are implying that under AL practice, the said couples must have intent to abstain AND confess for each transgression?

If so, then that’s what I think is in line with Sacred Tradition

 

[AveOTheotokos]

I saw this article this morning and thought it might be helpful to this discussion for gaining some more insight on Pope Francis and his perspective regarding Amoris Laetitia. It seems to echo some of the ideas put forth by Fr. Dwight Longnecker in his article that was linked earlier in this thread.

Pope to Jesuits: Help Critics of Amoris Laetitia to See Its Morality Is Thomist

In a question and answer session during his visit to Colombia, now published in La Civilta Cattolica, the Pope again defends the document against its critics, repeating that its moral basis is Thomistic, and dismisses theologians who take a “purely casuistic” approach to morality.

www.ncregister.com

 

[pnewton]

If your commentary sees absolutely nothing in the change then I suggest it is lightweight.

As Prof Josef Seifert warned recently, before being sacked for making this warning, we are facing the risk of the total destruction of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. I would add that the contradictions now being introduced deny reason itself

I agree that a commentary that sees absolutely nothing in the change is lightweight, as are the opinions that say they deny reason. Refusing to recognize the differences in opinion is not conducive to discussion or understanding. That is why most of these criticisms of the Holy Father strike me as hollow. Most ignore the differences by setting up a straw man of what the Holy Father actual says, and what he believes. This filial correction falls into that category, in my opinion.

 

[BlackFriar]

Can you show me support that those in a state of grace cannot approach communion when they know they have done grave matter, but it is venial on account of the other two conditions of mortal sin.

I see no pressing reason that a person in a state of grace would be required to make an act of perfect contrition. Recall 916 is requiring such an act.

Its not a case of either or but both and.
(ie both mortal sins of full culpability and venial sins of grave matter).

As I said, the phrase “grave sin” is more generic than a modern day reading of “mortal sin”.
Even your commentary makes this point which you neglected to mention. See the footnote. Did you read the following page or were you relying on the free version with the page missing?
I see it also references Communio journal where somebody has written an article on this very point. Its a pity I no longer live in a Dominican House of Studies where I could amble over to the library and read it at my leisure.

And you have not commented on the observation that “grave sin” is also used in Canon 915 where it clearly means objective mortal sin…ie grave matter.

So it can mean both.
Conscious of grave sin therefore means not only of full culpability but can also mean being made aware the Church considers the matter grave.

I suggest to you that an irregular failing in a personal commitment to the PP to abstain from sex bars from Communion each and every time without confession. While it seems only a private grave sin it is not by reason of the linkage with the preceding grave matter of public second marriage. It becomes public adultery again.

It is not the same as say, masturbation. This is grave sin objectively also but not public grave like adultery Therefore I would not think mitigated venial occassions strictly are required by 916 to be brought to Confession first. I may be wrong. That has always been the customary practise amongst us.

Card Ratzinger talks about grave sin and 916 here. Its fairly patent the gravity of matter implied by the Canon is that of certain specified public matter. This suggests venial culpability does not provide an escape clause when the grave matter is certain public type sins.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.htm

It seems considerations of both private and public worthiness are at play in both canons.
Its not all about personal moral culpability when presenting for Communion or giving Communion.

 

[Ghosty1981]

It is not the same as say, masturbation. This is grave sin objectively also but not public grave like adultery

A case of masturbation that fell under Canon 915 would raise a whole host of other difficulties.

 

[BlackFriar]

May I only observe that would be my normative practise should an abstaining couple be under my supervision as their PP. But I am not a PP but more an academic in this area.
Like dealing with masturbation cases its a prudential matter I suppose which would vary among Confessors. Some penitents get over scrupulous which means this would not be helpful and a regime of say regular 2 monthly confessions may be more helpful advising perfect acts of contrtition and trust in God for lapses inbetween.

 

[Pug]

Even your commentary makes this point which you neglected to mention. See the footnote.

I can’t mention something I don’t see. There are only two footnotes, 77 and 78, in the section on canon 916. It is page 1111 in the text, which I own and have with me right now. The footnotes 77 and 78 offer no commentary about mortal and grave. They instead reference Trent and CCC 1452. The Catechism there says mortal, and Trent says mortal (I’m reading those in English).
Click for Trent session 13 canon 11
Canon 11. If anyone says that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist,[52] let him be anathema. And lest so great a sacrament be received unworthily and hence unto death and condemnation, this holy council ordains and declares that sacramental confession, when a confessor can be had, must necessarily be made beforehand by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, however contrite they may consider themselves. Moreover, if anyone shall presume to teach, preach or obstinately assert, or in public disputation defend the contrary, he shall be excommunicated.
Perhaps that is a newer edition of my book? I’ve owned mine over 10 years, I think. It says copyright 2000 The Canon Law Society of America. Are you talking about footnotes to a different canon than 916?

I’d like to read this footnote that I don’t see, if possible, before looking up more things.

 

[BlackFriar]

Indeed.
Though if such cases were public matter the behaviour would most likely be compulsive and deserving of our sympathy…as is the case with, in older times, loyal Irish Catholics I used to know who were rarely completely sober at any time but faithfully ambled up for Communion every Sat morning.

 

[rcwitness]

Indeed.
Though if such cases were public matter the behaviour would most likely be compulsive and deserving of our sympathy…as is the case with, in older times, loyal Irish Catholics I used to know who were rarely completely sober at any time but faithfully ambled up for Communion every Sat morning.

Is Pope Francis allowing the Irish to receive Communion while drunk now!!!

 

[BlackFriar]

My aplogies then, we likely refer to different editions perhaps. I do not currently possess the version I referred to from memory. I recall it well from a year or two ago as I did some research on this point at the time.

It matters little pug, the evidence for my position re knowledge of grave and public objective matter not being excluded from the intent of “grave sin” is widespread and somewhat overwhelming regardless I suggest.

You need to be careful when mining older material like Trent and even the 1917 Code. A good scholar must be aware how translation from Latin and the sliding of meaning that can occur between generations can interfere. I am not sure you have fully tweaked to this.

It is fairly well understood that what we mean today by the colloquial expression “mortal sin” is not quite the same as of old or in Latin. Often enough the Latin and older english texts really refer to grave matter (i.e. the public or objective meaning of mortal sin). We moderns, and indeed the definition in the CCC, is different. It clearly involves full culpability in the definition as well.

I note you may not yet have realised this trap for young players (as my old teacher was want to say) in your use of such texts.

That is likely why the Codes 1917 to 1983 changed from “mortal sin” to “grave sin”.
For if the 1983 Code was read using the same definition of “mortal sin” as to be later found in the CCC then the reader would likely come away from Canon 916 and 915 with an understanding not present in the 1917 Code as read by a person of that time.

 

[BlackFriar]

You have jogged an old memory.
One particular old Irishman used to accost me at the door going out of Sat morning mass with regular bonhomie…and on quitting would regularly elbow me in the ribs and say in a thick Irish accent. “Ah Br. to be sure I am full of the Spirit in the morning…and of the evening too.”

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t think we should judge who we think is committing a sin and unremorseful, while receiving Communion.

The call of the Church is not to receive Communion at her table while unrepenting of sexual relations with anyone who is not a valid spouse.

It doesn’t matter how many times someone falls, if they are given Absolution, they can receive without judgment from men.

God’s judgment if we abuse the Sacrament is what we all will need to be subject to.

 

[BlackFriar]

It doesn’t matter how many times someone falls, if they are given Absolution, they can receive without judgment from men.

Quite right.
But the matter under discussion is what sins bar a person from Confession in the first place…and whether someone may receive worthily (both personally and publicly) after lapses and before Confession.